June 13, 2014

It All Adds Up: Many Atheists are Nuts

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Good day to publish this. Not only is it Friday the 13th, but also a full moon.

Atheist, narcissist, atheopath, sociopath, psychopath — sometimes they can describe the same morally bankrupt people. Also, there's a link between atheism and autism. See if this article and the ones that are linked describe any that you know.

At the end of 2010, I had the audacity to even dare to ask if atheism causes brain damage. Apparently, it is one of the ultimate crimes to question anything about the intelligence, morality or sanity of The Mighty Atheist™ because I received a number of attacks, misrepresentation and outright lies. (A guy can't even ask?) Later, atheists were incensed and went into full denial mode when I later pointed out that there is a definite link between atheism and autism.

They do tend to become furious and attack like piranhas at any perceived slight, or if someone criticizes one of their religious icons, such as Clinton Richard Dawkins:

For that matter, priests of atheism and evolutionism like Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson will tell blatant untruths and then their fanboys will gleefully spread them around. 

Observing their behavior (especially online, where they can be bold and beautiful behind their keyboards), and drawing from other things I've learned, I realized that many modern atheists are not just people who happen to reject God. Atheism is not an intellectual position. Rather, it is a way to intellectualize, justify and suppress the truth in unrighteousness so they can indulge in moral corruption

Although atheists are a small minority of the population, it appears that their demographic contains a high percentage of people who are out of their minds. The main problem is spiritual (God "gave them over", Romans 1.18-24). Not only do they exhibit many tendencies of psychopaths (including trolling), but go beyond that into the more dangerous realm of the narcissistic psychopath.

I don't have time to go into detail about what I have seen and experienced, but will point out that this is well in keeping with atheopaths and the new atheo-fascism. (Note the instances of angry atheist evolutionists toward violence, as documented here.)

Moving forward now. An article caught my attention, "Profile of a Narcissistic Sociopath – Charming, Manipulative, Grandiose, Lying, Authoritarian, Secretive, Divisive…". It is not from a Christian perspective, but it has a few points that I would like to go over.

"They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace." I have heard it said (and fully agree) that many professed atheists do not disbelieve in God so much as they are so narcissistic, they are their own gods and there is no room for the real one in their lives. Especially because God cannot be impressed by human "wisdom" and accomplishment, but we must humble ourselves and accept him on his terms, not ours.

"They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault." Even when you catch one in a lie or an error, the blame is shifted; it's not my fault because someone else made me foul up.

"They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed." I have gained stalkers who have never forgiven me for catching them in lies and logical fallacies, and I have documentation of the same treatment given to others. Instead, we are made to be the liars and the fools in their eyes, and they think we are concerned about what they think. Not hardly. But they do make for good examples so we can instruct thinking people.

"Feels entitled to certain things as 'their right.'" Such as the "right" to be able to make comments, and some get furious when they are not permitted to spout off with their abusive and irrational comments. 

"Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others." Like I said, they make themselves into their own gods. Let me be blunt: In addition to this, they are attention whores. If you do not grant them a platform, the "right" to turn your social media area, Weblog or whatever into their own urinals, they have fits. Some even take an "I'm out to get you" approach, thinking they are doing the world a favor by attacking others through ad hominems and libel. In so doing, they seek to demonize the individual, since they cannot deal with logical arguments and engage in civil discussions for any length of time. Don't get me started on how so many of these militant misotheists are self-appointed experts on a multitude of topics...

"A Sociopath will always be smearing someone and inciting people against each other. Sociopaths do not want people to like or get along with each other and will try to 'divide and conquer.' They will say odd things to people in the social group: 'She doesn’t like you' or 'She doesn’t want me doing anything with you.'" This was particularly interesting to me because I see these people searching the Web and "recruiting" others in their campaigns of hate.

Twitter and YouTube are notorious for having people get others to join in on ridicule. More than once, I've caught an atheopath in logical fallacies, then suddenly I am expected to answer to about six people at one time (and barely able to type out four words in reply there). It is like schoolchildren who were caught smoking in the restroom and want to get others hating the teacher who caught them being rotten in the first place.

"Sociopath has a strange network of Support People ranging from 'consultants,' to skilled-workers, to enabling co-dependents that back him up when he wants to go after his Target. Most of the Support People have their own Psychological problems." Yes, they have their "dens" (as I call them) where they blaspheme God, and whine about Christians and "religion", whether it's the double-standard-laden Facebook, forums or other venues. There were times it read more like a support group than anything else. But it is really interesting to see some furious atheists whining about the big, bad Christians, getting so obstreperous that the other atheists consider them to be of no consequence.

I could go on with this article, add screenshots and links ad nauseum, but you get the idea. Take a look at "Profile of a Narcissistic Sociopath" and see how many you have encountered (endured) yourself. Keep in mind that they crave attention, and keep trying to provoke you to get it. It gets difficult sometimes (especially because so many attempt to manipulate you by appealing to your emotions and pride), but do try your best to leave them behind.

May 30, 2014

More Analysis of the "Hitler was a Christian" Slander

When I first made the post refuting the "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense, there was a great deal of response from atheopaths who wanted to cling to their false claim despite the evidence. They would quote mine from Hitler and ignore information that put it into proper context. (Not surprising, because they believe what Hitler said, but also foolishly quote mine the Bible to make it look bad as well. Glaring inconsistencies at best.) Not only was Hitler a maniacal politician who would say what it took to get people on his side, but he was nuts.

By the way, when pressed, these atheists cannot show where he gave anything resembling accurate Scriptural support for his actions, nor can they show where he was following Biblical commands. It is an entirely spurious argument.

Used by permission of Ken Ammi
Andy Pierson has an interesting article that gives further refutation of the Christian Hitler falsehood. He includes some quotes from Hitler and the Nazis that were downright blasphemous, and also points out that the Christian Hitler claim is logically fallacious.
There is often a misguided belief among rabid anti-Christians (and sometimes even believers) that Hitler was a Christian in adulthood because he was a catholic in his youth. This supposed “fact” that Hitler was Christian is then made into a fallacy of composition to say that Nazi’s and the Nazi movement in general was Christian also. This is then taken to a third level of absurdity to try and prove that Christians are probably madmen and evil due to an extremely tenuous connection to Hitler. This of course is a convenient but false bridge of fallacies (fallacy of association, red herring among others). If we examine the facts, exact quotes and history...we will arrive at a dramatically different conclusion than that of our misguided friends.

This is a warped understanding of history and frankly, frighteningly wrong. Sadly, the belief that Hitler was Christian during his tenure as Früher or that Christianity was somehow complicit in the Holocaust is further exacerbated by what is perceived as a deafening silence from the Vatican during the 1920’s to 1940’s. The Catholic Church is sometimes rabidly pursued as anti-Semitic for this silence also (probably unfairly at times). It is often mentioned that the Vatican was right in the heart of Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy (one of Hitler's allies) so it is implied that they are somehow guilty due to geographical location. Furthermore it is assumed that because the Roman Church did not fight back against the Axis powers they were somehow guilty by omission or by failure to act.
You can read the rest at "The 'Hitler was a Christian' Mythos". By the way, this Weblog is seven years old today.

May 22, 2014

The Danger of Atheists in Power

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are two videos at the end of this article that I urge you to watch.

For years, secularists have been actively protecting evolution from serious scrutiny; people are not educated in thinking logically and examining the evidence. (This can be seen and heard from many modern atheists who claim to use "reason", but are unable to do so.) Instead, they are told what to think and not how to think. Evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and other secularist religions. Biblical creationists not only show the flaws in evolution, but also stand on the authority of God's Word instead of making idols out of scientists. In fact, many secularists have elevated science itself to a kind of deity status. 

I made this in May 2010, and I'm pleased to see that it has been around. Sometimes, with variations.
The new atheo-fascists are capitalizing on these things. Since people "think" with their emotions rather than utilizing the minds that God gave them, they fall prey to manipulative tactics. Many of these are interrelated:
  • Ridicule. Discrimination and persecution often begin here. It can be the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy ("Do you realize what people will think if they found out that you believe in God?"), or outright mockery. Notice how this is extensive on social media, and Facebook is known for shutting down Christians and political Conservatives.
  • Confusion. Attacking people with a barrage of statements, leading questions and outright nonsense, then affirming that atheism uses "reason".
  • Marginalization. Using misrepresentation and straw men (which can be seen in the appeal to ridicule fallacy mentioned above), selective citing or simply brushing someone off as unimportant because of their worldview (often using the "genetic fallacy" and "poisoning the well"). This is different from brushing something or someone off because you have concluded that they are wasting your time, however.
  • Trolling. Atheopaths will go on a jihad to attack Christians and creationists all over the Web instead of allowing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Silence through intimidation.
  • Intimidation, bullying and stalking. The aforementioned trolls use ridicule and confusion to attempt to intimidate people (but they become furious when people stand up to them and show their fallacies), and some resort to stalking.
  • Nit-picking. Militant atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists will pick on an article's introduction and ignore the substance. Similarly, they will find something that is not documented and complain about that (again, ignoring the main part of an article).
  • Labeling. People will use loaded terminology (including nonsensical and dishonest words like "homophobe" and "anti-science"). People like Richard Dawkins and his followers will call "religion" a "virus", and people who teach the Bible to their children are "child abusers". "Religion is dangerous" is a fallacious generalization. Since so many people lack critical thinking skills, they simply accept the emotive terminology they receive rather than risk being politically incorrect by challenging it.
  • Concentration and repetition. This is a propaganda technique where if something is repeated enough, people will eventually believe it (whether it is true or not).
  • Legislation and activism. Militant atheists are attempting to remove the rights of Christians, as is seen in the news on a frequent basis. Teaching creation science is becoming illegal in Britain.
  • Opposition. Atheo-fascists attack Bible-believing Christians on issues of abortion, homosexual "marriage" and others. Ironically, they act like it is some kind of moral imperative to oppose us on those issues as well as evolution, yet they do not have a consistent moral standard! Note that there are very few who hold to politically conservative viewpoints.
  • Global warming (or "climate change). They are in agreement with the environmental extremists regarding anthropomorphic global warming. Those of us who disagree with this, as well as with evolutionism, are "science deniers".

  • Violence. We know what happens when atheists get political power. On a less obvious level, vandalism of Christian places is increasing, and yes, violence by atheists is also increasing. Note that most atheists deny this, saying that atheism had nothing to do with killing. It is another expression of hatred for God and his followers.

Militant atheopaths are ridiculing, marginalizing at finding various ways to attack Christians. We need to be aware of the threat and arm ourselves with our own activism, prayer, knowledge of Scripture, true science and more. We need to use our rights to speak out and resist them instead of rolling over and letting it happen. If we don't use our rights, we may very well lose them.

Please watch the videos:

May 16, 2014

Free Speech, Censorship, the Internet, You and the Bad Guy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 
Edited January 28, 2017
Sometimes I am the bad guy when it comes to matters of "free speech" and "censorship". People often talk about them, but they often use those terms in the heat of anger or to emotionally manipulate others. In reality, there is no absolutely free speech, and censorship can be helpful — and censorship is more common than you may think.

Free Speech
Someone may say that they have a "right" to free speech, but where did they get that right? Here in the United States, we have documents from our founders that guarantee it. Some countries have almost no free speech. Even here where it is treasured, there are limitations. Municipalities have statutes in place making certain speech unlawful; the community has the right to set its standards, after all (as long as it does not engage in illegal "hard" censorship). We have the right to criticize the government. However, we do not have the right to cause harm to others through defamation, inciting violence, and so on. You can say, "That guy's stupid", and your remark will probably be put aside as an insulting outburst. Attacking character, calling someone a liar, actively trying to harm that person — if you cannot back up what you say or write about someone, you are abusing free speech and may be subject to legal action. Similarly, the old adage of, "You cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" applies, as such an action can cause panic, injury and death. Many more examples exist, but you get the point: There are exceptions to free speech, even in countries that guarantee it.

Many people applaud the Internet because people can have their say with fewer restrictions. However, if you join a forum, sign up for Web space, start a Weblog, join some other online service, there are restrictions in place. These are often based on the laws of the countries where the host is based, but there are also agreements with certain basic standards (even Facebook will occasionally enforce some of those, but they are notorious for double standards). Read the Terms of Service for many of the online products and you'll see that you cannot defame people, post child porn, infringe on copyright, use "hate speech" (against ethnicity, gender, religion and so on) and many other restrictions. If someone wants to violate these things, they can lose the privilege of using that service and risk possible prosecution. So, even on the Web, there is no absolutely free speech.

Unpopular Opinion Puffin censorship necessary

When discussing censorship, the first thought that many people have is about governments. During wartime, mail to and from hostile countries went through a censor's office before being delivered to the recipient. There is censorship to protect military secrets from other countries. Certain other speech (like sedition) is censored, as are many forms of pornography.

People will self-censor every day. A guy may want to say, "Hey girl, your dress looks like a potato sack", but will say something else or even keep his remarks to himself. A co-worker says something bad about the boss, and the other co-worker refrains from agreeing or adding additional statements. Spouses find better ways to say something or not say it at all.

Web Services
On the Web, your host can remove your content or even suspend your account for violation of the rules. Leaving comments, making posts, writing articles that are against the rules (or against laws) can result in removal from a service.

It is ironic that Facebook and others will censor many Christians, Conservatives and creationists, but allow obscene hate speech by by atheists, leftists and evolutionists. That's right, Skippy, we get censored. Quite a bit, in fact. Many of us expect to wake up some morning and find that our material has been removed by leftists and misotheists.

Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman
"Censored" stamp art originally from clker.com

Where are the Rights?
On the Web, some people demand the "right" to "free speech". In actuality, they want to be able to say what they want, wherever they want, without restrictions. If someone bans a user or removes a comment, he or she is often accused of "censorship". Although it is an emotionally-laden buzzword that is often thrown out almost reflexively, there are times that there is truth to the accusation. When Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. David Menton made a response video to Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy, Dr. Purdom's Facebook Page was loaded with vile, hateful comments. Many people were angry because those comments were deleted and people were banned. She was called a "coward" for not allowing atheopaths to turn her Facebook Page into their a latrine. I recommend that you read "Am I a Coward?" for her insightful response to this. Was it censorship? Seems to be. Was it the right thing to do? You betcha! Did they lose their rights? Not hardly.

Most of this stuff happens from militant atheists who have no respect (indeed, they have contempt) for the rights, sensibilities, views and expression of others. I believe that they want to silence the opposition (those of us who present the gospel, and especially those who spread the truth that evolution is false and that God is the Creator to whom we are accountable). One way to silence us is to shout us down or intimidate us. Want to comment? I moderate those. Want to send me an e-mail? If you're obnoxious, you'll be blocked. You do not have the right to inflict your viewpoints on people who do not want them. I know of some organizations that refuse to deal with some people because of their obstreperous comments.

What Does it Mean to You?
Manipulators will insist that they have the "right" to leave comments of any kind, and if you do not allow them, you are a "coward", you are suppressing their "free speech" and engaging in "censorship". Many sites, Pages, Weblogs and so on do not allow comments at all, or restrict them — note the blatant hypocrisy of atheopath tinhorns that complain about sites that moderate or disallow comments, but not a peep about many sites, such as Popular Science, that have removed commenting altogether. Why should we subject ourselves to bigotry, hate speech, libel, tantrums and simply bad behavior? They are not being denied free speech because they can join bigoted forums, write their own Weblogs, and they can find other venues to express themselves. These complainers have no justification, and they still have their rights — but they were never given the right to post material on our sites and so forth, no matter what they assert. The painful truth for them is that you do not have to give narcissistic bullies a platform.

This means that you and I are not guaranteed free speech, nor will we escape censorship, even online. We do not have any right to say whatever we want, wherever and whenever. To some people, this makes me the bad guy. So say goodnight to the bad guy!

May 5, 2014

Atheism's Faulty Moral Compass and Consequences

— by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The religion of atheism seems to attract a high percentage of deviants because they have no consistent foundation for morality. One way this can be seen is that, when pressed, atheists cannot actually account for morality itself. If you examine the Web, Facebook, Weblogs and so on, you'll find many examples of obscenity and hatred toward God and his people.

The religion of atheism seems to attract a high percentage of deviants because they have no consistent foundation for morality. One way this can be seen is that, when pressed, atheists cannot actually account for morality itself.
US Geological Survey
Although they claim that they can be "good without God", the words and actions of so many Internet atheists belie that claim. This is the opposite of the truth.Their moral compass is situational and based on whatever is expedient at the time. Living in societies that are founded on Christian morality, they are actually borrowing from the Christian worldview when they say that something is right or wrong. There comes a point when God essentially says, "Your will be done", and gives them over to their depraved minds. Atheism is irrational and incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience and intelligibility. Many seem to realize this, hiding behind ideology and attacking people when the facts are against them. It's easy to call a creation scientist a liar when you are incapable of reason, isn't it?

Edit, added this screenshot:
The straw man attack is obvious, but the writer insists that he is right, then changes the subject and attacks, compounding the fallacies.

Persecution of Christians is increasing worldwide, and Christians in the West should be ready for it as well. We can see this from the aforementioned Internet attacks on Christians, as well as the constant whining and legislative efforts and protests from hypocritical atheist groups who claim to believe in "freedom" — which is for anti-Christian activities, homosexuality, polygamy and other deviant acts that atheism attracts.

Some of us wonder when blind hatred of some of these atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will result in violence. Oh, wait. It has:
"Come on, Cowboy Bob! That doesn't mean all atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will get violent!"

Nobody is saying that they will all become killers or do depraved activities. Many are moral according to society's standards. There are two important points to keep in mind. First, their moral standard is arbitrary and inconsistent. Second, they are simply being consistent with their worldview. People are given only the cherry-picked data supporting evolution, not told about the deceptions and bad science, not taught how to think critically but instead are brainwashed, "survival of the fittest", no creator, no judgment, no ultimate moral standards — just acting like the animals that they are told they came from. Ideas have consequences, and if you take the Bible away, these things should not be a surprise.

There was almost another atheist evolutionist killing spree.
A young man who idolized the Columbine killers was preparing to kill dozens or hundreds of people at a 
[Waseca] Minnesota high school. Multiple news sources (The Examiner, Daily News, The Blaze, and more) are mentioning that 17-year-old John LaDue, who was preparing a deadly mass attack on his family and school, was a passionate admirer of Harris and Klebold – the killers who launched the modern era of senseless mass killings in 1999 on the school grounds at Columbine High School in Colorado. Photos from that attack showed Harris with a T-shirt during the rampage labeled, “Natural Selection” in large letters. His writings showed that he believed the planned mass shooting would “boost natural selection by a few notches.”
Read the rest of the report and commentary at "Stopped in Time: Another Atheist Killing Spree".

Addendum: Screen shot of an utterly amazing comment:

I'm not the one killing and planning to kill people because I have no consistent moral standard. And I know how to, ya know, make sentences. Like, duh, fer sher, ya know? 

April 30, 2014

Questioning the Dubious Duties of Darwin Drones

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

"But, I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind — I do not feel I’m exaggerating when I express it this strongly."
 "...When I read the deliberate malicious stupid relentless lying evil from hypocrite Sorensen I start to wish that hell really exists. Because he will go there if it does if he does not repent of his hatred towards all people who criticise his online aggression and arrogance whilst wearing 'Christian' ie 'Bible defending' clothing.

"The Question Evolution Project is a Cesspit of Hate as I have demonstrated many times.

"Those caught in Bob's cesspit should get out while they can if they have any sense and if they are real Christians."
An irrational Stalker, and Bill Nye Fanboi 
"...The fact you refuse to learn evolution does NOT give you the right to spread disinformation; without that disinformation being criticized. Plainly put, this article is a crock of s**t."
— from a comment left at The Question Evolution Project

EDIT: Addendum at the bottom, people ironically proving me right.

It is puzzling how evolutionists, whether they are atheist, agnostic, theistic, old earth Scripture-compromising or something else seem to feel compelled to silence the opposition. Bill Nye, evolution's poster boy, has made ridiculous statements about how evolution is essential to understanding "science", indicating that he does not understand the nature of science himself. Richard Dawkins tells his followers to ridicule Christians (so much for "tolerance" — and atheists wonder why they are disliked by so many people). Various atheist celebrities make good money at writing books ridiculing "religion" and engaging in debates.

The rank-and-file drones patrol (emphasis on "troll") the interweb on a mission to find and attack Christian content. They seek it on social media, Weblogs, merchandising sites and more, then attack us. Especially biblical creationist content. They seem to be compelled to make a variety of comments that are inane, obscene, antagonistic, laughable or any combination thereof.

PD/US Military (modified)

Why? What do they hope to accomplish?

As you can see, some are consumed with blind hate. People who run other Pages on Facebook with Christian material will comment to me that they didn't really believe how depraved these atheopaths can be until they saw it themselves. I can understand that, since my reporting (as well as linking to comments of hateful people) does not have the impact for someone who does not experiencing it for himself or herself.

So, we question why.

I do know one answer: It's a spiritual thing. They deny the existence of God and suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1.18-22). People are enemies of God (Rom. 5.15, Phil. 3.18) before they are adopted as God's children through the blood of Jesus Christ (John 1.12, Gal. 4.5-6). They are doing the will of their father down below (John 8.44), and though they think they are "freethinkers" using "reason", they are actually slaves to sin and cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2.14, John 8.34, 1 Cor. 3.19-20). Sin affects the mind (Rom. 1.22.23). They hate God, the Word, humility for salvation — and us. Part of their hatred of God's people is based on the fact that we have been redeemed and represent God in the world. We stink to them (2 Cor. 2.15-16).

But another aspect of the "why" question defies reason: Why do they feel the need to protect science?

Creation science is "anti-science rhetoric" that harms the entire species according to this troll.

Whether the wandering Internet trolls or the high-profile evolutionists, they act like they're on a mission. From whom? Science itself does not need protection! What is worse, they are using bad reasoning to justify their activities, equivocating "science" with "evolution". But evolution is not science, it is speculation about the past using scientific processes to interpret things that are observed in the present. A great deal of evolutionary science is not scientific at all. Rather, it is metaphysics (especially when dealing with cosmogony). Speculations about evolution are frequently presented as scientific truth.

Many of Darwin's Drones seem to think you are stupid. Instead of letting you evaluate the evidence, you must be protected from creation science so you're not confused with facts that they do not want you to learn. They'll save you!

A tremendous irony is that many claim some kind of moral motive. We are "liars" because we disagree with evolutionary presuppositions and show their errors (which makes them furious). When we present our point of view and the facts that anti-creationist do not want you to know, they attack. Biblical creationists have the Bible as our ultimate standard of morality. They do not have an ultimate, consistent standard of morality. To say that we're evil, they are actually appealing to a higher standard — they're appealing to God and, therefore, to the biblical worldview! The meaning in their lives is based on a fundamentally flawed worldview that is irrational, incoherent and inconsistent.

Further, they feel they must eliminate biblical creation science. This is the opposite of the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Instead, science thrives on challenges; if a hypothesis or theory is found to be faulty, it is modified or even discarded. But not evolution. That stays no matter what. Dawkins said in The Blind Watchmaker that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". There is a strong measure of humanistic arrogance in clinging to evolution, but it is also the spiritual problem that man is at war with God and does not wish to humble himself before the Creator.

My conclusion, then is that their fighting to promote evolution and suppress alternative viewpoints has a spiritual base. Man hates God and wants to proudly cling to "wisdom" and false "science" to justify rejection of God. No wonder they hate those of us who have a personal relationship with Jesus, the Creator who became a man, died for our sins, bodily rose from the dead and offers salvation. But it comes on his terms, not ours. We must humble ourselves and receive his gift (Ephesians 2.8-9).

Darwin's Cheerleaders can actually have purpose and meaning in their lives through Christ. They can build up instead of destroy.

ADDENDUM: People were so blinded by hate, they left comments that inadvertently proved me right.
Now why do you suppose this post, which has little to no value whatsoever, shows up as "what's hot and recommended"? I'll tell you why--it's because of all the creationist drones sharing and plussing it in a concerted, preplanned effort.  If this isn't a case of a pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. But I can't say that I'm even the least bit surprised. It's a common tactic of the religious to claim the exact opposite, and to project their worst traits onto their opponents.
— Left at Google Plus. Sounds paranoid, frankly.
 Lying never works in the long run - even if you're doing it for God.
— Left at Google Plus, very helpful, makes me a better person.

It's hardly a matter of "blind hate." I'd describe it more as an informed disgust. Most atheists who bash the bible and creationism know more about the bible than many Christians do. We know all about its promotion of rape, slavery, and mass murder and find its barbaric teachings and factual inaccuracies disgusting not only on a personal level, but we feel it has held back scientific progress for centuries. The bible is a relic whose teachings should be recognized only from the standpoint of mythologies...
— Left at Google Plus, incomplete because I copied it from my e-mail notification. You get the point, though, full of prejudicial conjecture and hatred, then claiming to be smarter than all the Christians.

These comments have been deleted from the Google Plus post. Why? Because I'm not obligated to give non-thinking haters a platform for their egos and vitriol, nor do I want to waste time in a fruitless "discussion" with minds like these.

April 11, 2014

"Unbelievers" and Poison

Clinton R. Dawkins and Larry Krauss are leading militant atheists on another crusade. They have a new movie called Unbelievers. Perhaps they have to step up their efforts in spreading disinformation and stirring up emotions against that shadowy bogey man called "religion" and all its evils because they know that atheism is declining globally. Perhaps they're still upset because atheists do not score well in being liked and trusted. Perhaps the money is not rolling in as much as it used to be.

Let's back up. Atheists complain that they're not liked. Why is that? Well, from this report about the movie from a source that I trust, it's the same kind of nonsense that they inflict on people all the time anyway. I am convinced that they are not disliked because they're atheists so much as because they're obnoxious. What do they do?

  • Appeal to emotion. After all, people "think" with their emotions, and militant atheopaths manipulate people that way.
  • Misrepresentation. A straw man can fool sheeple, and modern militant atheists have warehouses full of them, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.
  • Prejudicial conjecture. Telling stories that are untrue as well as uninformed so they can further manipulate people. "Dawkins and Krauss said so, and I believe them!"
  • Appeal to authority and double standards. When people have the unmitigated gall to question evolution, some of the Darwine drinkers will tell us that we have no business doing so because we do not have "qualifications". Yet they will listen to a theoretical physicist and a biologist as qualified authorities on matters of religion and how to run the world under the wisdom of militant, irrational atheism.
  • Other Logical fallacies. Using bad thinking like conflation, ad hominems, the aforementioned straw man and more.
  • Blatant inconsistencies. Telling people to "question everything", then atheopath drones go out and ridicule people who dare to question evolution, a foundation of the atheist religion.
  • Illegitimate activism. They pretend to be the persecuted victims and want their followers to rise up and stamp out "religion". Well, it's been tried for a long, long time. And even if it did happen, who would be building schools and hospitals? Certainly not the Dawkins Foundation.
  • Antipathy. These bullies loathe anyone who shows that atheism is inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational. And I have yet to encounter an atheist that will not lie to, and about, me or other creationists.

Deceptive, manipulative and emotionally provocative things like this will only harm the already dreadful image that atheists have. They think they are highly intellectual, and then refer to reviews like this one from Answers in Genesis as "Anti-science bigotry", and claiming that "Ham and Purdom pretend to 'know' that it is all rubbish". Yeah, who is really the bigot, Poindexter? Such misrepresentation — no, let's lay it on the line — such a lie only illustrates the foolishness of the writer. Especially since Ham wasn't an author of the review.

Anyone acquainted with logic and epistemology can easily see that atheism is incoherent. It is full of arbitrary assertions (another logical fallacy) and they do not have a consistent moral foundation. Pay attention and you'll see what I mean. But don't correct them (Proverbs 9.8), they tend to justify their fallacies with more fallacies and dishonesty.

Thank God atheism and that negativity is dying. We can hope and pray that the emotionalism and flaming dishonesty of Unbelievers will not poison too many minds. Humanity's salvation cannot come through rejecting God. It can only come through Jesus Christ.

Subscribe in a reader